Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  performance - whaler drive vs. Standard Transom

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   performance - whaler drive vs. Standard Transom
David T posted 07-15-2003 09:26 PM ET (US)   Profile for David T  
Had to move thi from General....

My impression has always been that it is the larger boats that see the signifcant performance (speed/fuel economy) gains from transom brackets - and that the differences are more pronounced for twin set ups than singles

Does anyone have any info - anecdotal or otherwise - about "all other things being equal" comparisons on 22 footers. I'm primarily interested in single engine set-ups, but curious about both.

mustang7nh posted 07-16-2003 09:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for mustang7nh  Send Email to mustang7nh     
Comments refer to a 25 foot model. I've never had either, but I've asked this question myself. The replies I received seem to indicate that the WD will give you a slightly better ride due to the increased waterline length. However this creates some drag, yet the increase in horsepower capability more than compensates. It would seem to me, and I'm just guessing, is that the WD will cost you more to purchase, cost more to repower (if you put 225s vs 150s on it), and cost you more to operate (feeding 450hp vs 300hp). Some may debate this last point as you can loof the big guys at lower rpms at cruise and even out or surpass the 150s in mpg. However, I would probably enjoy the increased cruising speed capability and just run them as hard as the smaller engines and in turn loose any potential fuel efficiency gains. I suspect the WD and nonWD would still ride pretty well regardless. So in the end, my guess is that the WD costs more but performs a bit higher. Is it worth the extra dough? Only you can decide.

I was in a '85 Revenge with twin 150s and was a bit disappointed in speed, but loved the smooth ride. Some of it may have also been the perceptual differences in having the windshield etc to block the wind. I didn't have a gps to check any speeds so this is just a "feeling" comment and may not be true in the sense of actual mph.

In constrast, although my 20 Outrage 1988 only did 45mph WOT, it felt like you were soaring across the waves at 35mph (cruise) so speed can be defined as both movement over a distance but also in reference to the feeling of fun that one may get from driving. I can't say what the cc 25Outrage feels like with 150s. But CC boats generally "feel" faster so twin 150s may be totally acceptable for all sense and purposes plus you get the possible cost savings. Just a thought.

Ponchee posted 07-16-2003 10:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for Ponchee  Send Email to Ponchee     
In my past life racing offshore boats....

We used to mount brackets to locate the motors as close together as possible and as far off the back of the boat as possible.

This allowed the engines to stay in the water longer and made it more stable in rough water. (performance wise)
When the boats left the water but not really launched out the engines trailed and stayed in contact and kept the boat moving forward. (it in essence lengthened the boat without the hull drag)

It also allowed a more consistent angle for the water to hit the props by moving the bottom trailing edge of the boat forward from the engines creating a fake step in the hull which put the motors in deeper water at the same trim setting.
I've seen some guys even put aluminum runners or vertical plates from the back of the boat to channel water to stay parallel with the boat and perpendicular to the prop blade.
Every little bit helps over 70 mph.... it really matters approaching 100.

I could see the same thing with the whalers only it'll be harder to feel unless your very familiar with the boat without a bracket and are used to travelling at speed in rough water. (not fun at WOT)

I'd prefer not to have one for the fishing I do because it moves the weight so far back that it could add to the stern depth. I fish shallows and don't even speed in mine so it's not for me anymore.


jimh posted 07-16-2003 11:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The conventional wisdom is probably that the Whaler Drive might be a bit slower than the identical boat with a standard transom and the same horsepower. This is because of the added weight of the Whaler Drive and also from the added wetted surface of the Whaler Drive.

The conventional wisdom is also that the Whaler Drive boat has a smoother ride.

The Whaler Drive generally allowed for an increase in the maximum rated horsepower.

It was an expensive option, too.

temp22 posted 10-06-2003 10:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for temp22  Send Email to temp22     
Can i put twin 225 yamahas on a 22temp with a wd. If I can how fast do you think it will go?
Barry posted 10-06-2003 06:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Could you? Sure.

Should you? I wouldn't recommend it. Too much weight. And you might find it difficult to get insurance.

lhg posted 10-06-2003 07:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I looked into the possibility of putting a pair of Merc 225 EFI's on a much larger 25 Outrage. The Mercury prop charts were showing 72 mph, so I took a pass.

I even think a pair of 200's is a bit much for a 22WD. I think the HP rating was later lowered to 300.

alkar posted 10-07-2003 12:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for alkar  Send Email to alkar     
You're right Larry. My 22' Outrage Whaler Drive maximum HP was 300. Barry's capacities plate from the same model a year earlier shows the maximum HP as 400.
lhg posted 10-07-2003 12:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Something doesn't calculate right on the 400Hp rating on a 22 Wd. Since the formula is based on transom width and hull length, a 25 Outrage, rated for 300HP, is wider and the same overall length if the WD unit is included in length. So the 300 sounds about right. Any 25 Outrage will easily handle more than the 300HP rating. It should have been rated for 400 I think.
outragesteve posted 10-07-2003 02:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for outragesteve  Send Email to outragesteve     
I rigged a 25 outrage w/ twin Merc 200 EFIS (2.5's, 1992) and it was a nice set-up. Using 23' mirages, it would almost throw you overboard on full throttle launches, and top end was around 60. The boat was pretty bare, no t-top, or alot of extra weight. I had a chance to buy it in 2000 for a STEAL of 21K but someone beat me to the punch...I still see the boat almost weekly, and wish "if only..."
Plotman posted 10-07-2003 11:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
Larry-

The formula doesn't apply to boats over 20 feet. There are no rules I know of limiting what a manufacturer can claim as max HP on these boats. That is why a lot of bass boats have odd looking pointed bows and are 20' 6" long.

David

hauptjm posted 10-07-2003 11:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
DavidT, are you pursuing a Whaler Drive or Bracket? If your answer is Whaler Drive, I believe jimh's comments to be accurate. If you're considering a bracket, then the answer is slightly different.

On my 18 Outrage, I have a solid transom, an Armstrong bracket with a 1995 150hp OMC. I have run with friends with the traditional notched transom 18 Outrage with 150hp Yamaha's, Suzukiís and OMC's. I can outrun all of them and have a better entry in the water at speed. I believe the hull entry is improved on my boat due to the increase in "leverage" provided by the bracket.

I'm guessing at the weight of the bracket, but probably somewhere in the 25-30lbs. category is close. This does not negatively affect the performance. Obviously, it improves both performance and economy. Look at this to see the configuration: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/images/18OutrageBktCUBgrd515x381.jpeg

Plotman posted 10-07-2003 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
Why did you remove the skeg?
hauptjm posted 10-07-2003 04:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
Plotman, I'm not sure! It's still on the engine though. Seriously, I think it disappeared as a result of the angle of the photo and jimh's editing out of a cluttered backround.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.